To gTLD or to Not gTLD?

If you haven’t already heard, there’s a new word in town. It’s called “dotBrand” and it’s about to crack the dotcom world wide open.

In January 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the non-profit organization that governs the internet’s naming system, is opening the opportunity for global businesses, communities, governments, and even geographical locations, to apply for generic top-level domain names (gTLDs)—such as .canon, .wine, and .nyc. Many are now weighing the pros and cons of “dotBranding” themselves.

The news surrounding ICANN’s new gTLD program, has stimulated a broad discussion raising questions such as “How could my business benefit from this?” to “Do I need to protect my brand?”

Like all things, there are a wide range of considerations to factor in when deciding whether to apply, among them trademark protection, brand equity, and cost. To help business leaders evaluate the benefits of investing in a gTLD, Columbia Business School’s Center on Global Brand Leadership hosted a video webinar, “Who Should Invest in a dotBrand?” this fall. The event brought together branding and internet experts to discuss the strategic questions decision-makers are facing. To view this free webinar, click here.

First, it should be clarified that ICANN isn’t simply handing out gTLDs to the first person or organization that applies. Just because Jane in Arizona is applying for .madonna doesn’t mean that she’ll get it. There are “checks and balances” in place including a trademark clearinghouse providing authentication of trademark information, and an objection-based process enabling rights holders to demonstrate that a proposed gTLD would infringe their legal rights. Of course there are valid concerns for businesses, organizations, and communities who do have common or even similar names. A company like Patagonia may be legitimately concerned about securing the same domain name as the region of Patagonia. ICANN has created a dispute resolution program, and even auction procedures, to handle such issues.

While some brands perceive gTLDs as a risk and may be considering applying for trademark protection, others envision possibilities involving brand extension and brand architecture. For example, a parent company like Unilever with multiple sub-brands could employ “dove.unilever.” B2C businesses like Citibank could create a more personalized consumer experience through their websites with url’s such as “www.michael.citibank.” But this also begs the question about the appearance of a brand’s homepage—is it “home.bmw” or “bmw.bmw”? Brand consultants seem to still be hashing this out.

And many opponents to the new gTLD program feel the financial commitment is a hefty price to pay for a top-level domain system that they feel works fine with its 22 existing TLDs (.com, .gov, .jobs, etc.). The application costs US$185,000 as well as a reported US$25,000 annual fee. Then there are the additional expenses such as technical, administration, and maintenance fees. For big name brands, this could be worth the investment. When compared to the cost of a single, 30-second television spot, it’s not a huge chunk of change. For small to mid-size companies, however, it is an expensive endeavor that may take deeper consideration.

“The kinds of benefits we see from a brand-building perspective are things like controlling your brand and your content,” explained Karl Isaac, Executive Director of Landor’s digital branding practice, during the Center’s webinar. “If you are a business that transacts with your customers or that protects very private and confidential information for your customer, the increased security benefits alone may outweigh the risks of doing this.”

The application process may be preempted, however, as the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has called for a hearing this month to discuss the merits, implications and concerns surrounding ICANN’s new program. If the gTLD application process does move forward as planned, businesses and organizations will need to do due diligence if thinking about applying.

BY ALLIE ABODEELY

Open vs. Closed Innovation: How Much Evil Is Just Right?

I had a great time running an executive program last week for Aalto University (formerly Helsinki School of Economics).

One of our liveliest discussions was on the subject of open vs. closed models of innovation. We examined the contrasting approaches of Google vs. Apple.

Google (“don’t be evil”) represented an open innovation culture, with its flat organizational structure, employee autonomy, fairly transparent communications, iterative approach to products (“beta, beta, beta”), and embrace of open platforms like Chrome and Android.

Apple (“be a little evil, and they’ll love you for it”) represented a contrast to that Silicon Valley conventional wisdom, with its hierarchical organization, charismatic hands-on leader, radical secrecy, disavowal of customer input, and embrace of proprietary platforms like iTunes and the iPhone App Store.

While partisans often take a strong position on “open” vs. “closed,” both companies have shown the potential benefits of their own approach to innovation. Google has grown thanks to the platform of the open Web, and proven incredibly innovative with a freewheeling, iterative, and decentralized approach (including its famous “20% time” for employees to initiate their own projects). Yet, Apple has likewise thrived under Steve Jobs, proving the power of vertically integrated innovation—linking web apps, installed software, and hardware—to create a transformative product like the iPhone.

With the recent news that Android phone sales have overtaken the iPhone in the U.S., Google’s open approach may be emerging as a winner in the smartphone space. After all, the Android operating system has managed to duplicate much of the magic of the iPhone, while allowing for more customization, greater product variety, availability on every network (not just AT&T), as well as an app store that doesn’t block submissions on sometimes mystifying grounds.

Of course, “open” and “closed” are really just extremes on a spectrum. The whole success of the iPhone came when Apple shifted, in its second model, from a fully closed system to a much more open platform for independent app developers. And, as a recent post by Nik Bhattacharya indicates, Android is not as purely open source as we may assume.

In an age of tight margins and competitive markets, open approaches to innovation are being adopted not just by Silicon Valley companies, but by governments, nonprofits, and traditional corporations like Procter & Gamble. The possibilities for reduced cost and broader sourcing of ideas often outweigh the risks to competitive surprise and exclusivity. It may be that the more traditional “closed” innovation is becoming a luxury that only a high-margin market leader like Apple will be able to afford in the future.

BY DAVID ROGERS

This post originally posted by David on the DavidRogers.biz blog at: http://www.davidrogers.biz

Image credit: Wired magazine

[Video] The “Post-Crisis” Consumer

Part of the “Video Mondays” series

As job growth in the US is reported to have stalled, a host of commentators have weighed in recently on the prospects for the “new normal” among consumers. (BusinessWeek‘s David Leonhard had one roundup on the paradox of current consumer psychology).

As such, it seems like an apt time to look back at John Gerzema’s talk from BRITE ’10 this spring, on the subject of “The Post-Crisis Consumer.”

Drawing on a wealth of data on consumer sentiment, John looked at how attitudes towards spending, values, and brands were changing even before the market collapse of fall 2008.

Whether or not we are anywhere near being “post-crisis,” the focus Gerzema sees on social values and the enterprises that embody them may characterize customers for years to come.

BY DAVID ROGERS

If video does not appear, click here to watch it on BRITEconference.com

This post originally posted by David on the DavidRogers.biz blog at: http://www.davidrogers.biz

Business Models Based on Sharing

In 2009, Time Magazine named Robin Chase one of its 100 Most Influential People, thanks to her pioneering ideas on transportation, beginning with her successful founding of Zipcar.

Inspired by car-sharing models in Europe, Chase brought to life a “car rental by the hour” platform in the U.S. Through a simple usage proposition, word-of-mouth marketing, and great customer service, Zipcar has expanded enormously over its ten-year existence–eventually spurring similar offerings from the more established car rental companies.

In founding Zipcar, Chase was also driven by a desire to develop transportation business models that were more sustainable and ecologically balanced. So her next venture, GoLoco, is the first company to combine ridesharing, social networks, and easy payment to help reduce carbon emissions. She explains the importance of the concept to BusinessWeek,

I see GoLoco as an immediate solution. It means I don’t have to wait for the government to introduce carbon taxes or congestion charges, or put in smart development or light rail or transit. Today, with the infrastructure we have, we can do something which dramatically reduces costs and emissions.

To read more about this new idea and Chase’s views on transportation, cooperative capitalism, and technology, visit her blog.

To hear Robin Chase speak at BRITE ’10, register now.

BY MATTHEW QUINT